This article questions the use of the term integral. It argues that although the use is well intentioned it draws its energy from the geophilosophical drive of the Western project. This project is imperialist in nature and bases its power on its ability to define. So although IF claims to be inclusive it actually establishes a self-referential dialogical relationship between itself and its interlocutor that privileges its position. This is clearly counter to the integral rhetoric of its most ardent exponents. It is argued that this imbalance is central to the entire Western philosophic project and is rooted in the geophilosophical gaze. Such a gaze is ultimately about assimilation not mutual discourse and should be set aside for more inclusive and less culturally aligned forms of cultural analysis such as Causal Layered Analysis which accounts for the primacy of context and local knowledge and finds agency in the working of those who constitute the multitude. Such work is process oriented and stands in real contrast to the definitional power (and terror) of the integral gaze.